<html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252"><title>Re: [Casper] Creating distribution for QuarkXPress... All versions</title>
</head>
<body>
<font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt">I think there is an assumption made that in an environment that needs to support multiple licenses in a central location they would have some infrastructure in place to deal with this. We have several pieces of software that we host hardware hasps (even MORE fun) for on a Windows server. It’s a bit more common than I’d like.<br>
<br>
Regardless...I do agree, and although Adobe’s installer is a huge pain...at least they don’t also do mother ship license servers!<br>
<br>
Craig E<br>
<br>
<br>
On 10/8/09 7:47 PM, "ken edgar" <<a href="ken.edgar@gmail.com">ken.edgar@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
</span></font><blockquote><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt">I agree that the QLA makes it easier... however what other software requires a machine or more for volume licensing to work? This to me is ridiculous. As much as I don't care for Adobe's installers... atleast I can re-package or setup a silent installer. Microsoft... just install or re-package and it works... Quark... too bad, Install one or more QLA servers which cost extra money and require some maintenance... or individually install.<br>
<br>
I was just hoping there was a way to get around it... for now I think I will stick with individual installs as painful as it is. We have people running 6.x 7.x and 8.x... all at different sites. I don't think QLA would make sense.<br>
<br>
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Don Montalvo <<a href="donmontalvo@gmail.com">donmontalvo@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
</span></font><blockquote><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt">"Smith, William" <<a href="William.Smith@merrillcorp.com">William.Smith@merrillcorp.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
</span></font><blockquote><blockquote><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt">I was trying to stay away from needing a qla. ?Not too keen on thier licensing<br>
model.<br>
</span></font></blockquote><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
Not to keen on their licensing model?<br>
<br>
With a QLA server, you're legally allowed to install QuarkXPress on as many<br>
machines as you choose without worrying about per seat licensing. That's<br>
fantastic!<br>
<br>
We've used QLA for the past few years and for the most part it just runs.<br>
It's serving both our Mac and Windows clients in more than a dozen sites<br>
around the world. If one server becomes unavailable then the backup takes<br>
over. If both are unavailable (such as a network outage) then each<br>
workstation can run up to 120 hours before having to reconnect.<br>
<br>
I won't say we haven't had problems a couple of times with the servers but<br>
they've been worth maintaining compared to having to maintain 80+ individual<br>
serial numbers. Plus, we've actually been able to reduce the number of<br>
licenses we'd have to maintain individually because not everyone uses<br>
QuarkXPress at the same time.<br>
<br>
The downside? Yes, you have to pay an additional fee to convert one of your<br>
stand-alone licenses to the QLA server license. It's been very worth it for<br>
us.<br>
<br>
I strongly suggest looking into it.<br>
</span></font></blockquote><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
Everything William said and then some.<br>
<br>
Having QLA also allows you to package QuarkXPress, along with the QLAClient.properties license file (which should have DNS names for the main and failover servers). Can't do that with individual licenses (unless you create one pkg installer for each licensed copy.<br>
<br>
QLA servers can (and should) be set up with main/failover servers so clients can continue to work if the main server goes down. If both servers go down, you can push emergency keys out to the users so they can continue to work.<br>
<br>
I can agree with the original poster if by "licensing model", they meant the upgrade price, lack of cross upgrade offerings, etc. But one thing Quark has their act together on is QLA. If Adobe followed their lead, there would be a lot less "Adobe CS installer stinks" threads and articles circulating on the internet. :)<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Don<br>
</font><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Casper mailing list<br>
<a href="Casper@list.jamfsoftware.com">Casper@list.jamfsoftware.com</a><br>
<a href="http://list.jamfsoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/casper">http://list.jamfsoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/casper</a><br>
</span></font></blockquote><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
<br>
</span></font></blockquote>
</body>
</html>